Oregon Judge Refuses to Perform Same-Sex Marriages

a reply to: yuppa

Yeah she was a jerk fo rnot marrying them i agree. but the judge was a jerk wanting to make a example out of someone.

Yeah, judges can be jerks for siding with the law of the land.
They're funny that way. Oh, wait. That's their job.

Get it? Job? Doing the job which one has?
Her job is not deciding who gets a marriage license or not. Her job is issuing a marriage license to everyone who meets the legal requirements. Her interpretation of what God wants has no place in the way she does her job.

Vance Day, a circuit court judge in Oregon, is already facing multiple ethics complaints for refusing to perform marriages for same-sex couples. And now he's having to defend a picture of Adolph Hitler he had hung in the courthouse. www.advocate.com...

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Huckabee lost any chances of getting anywhere next elections with his opinions of how people and government should interpret the law.

He is either dumb or stupid, or both.

a reply to: Annee

I read about that, now he is telling that he has the picture of hitler as part of an exhibition honoring world war vets. and history.

Still he now is hiding behind his choice of no marrying anybody.

But we all know what his position on gay marriage truly is.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Annee

I read about that, now he is telling that he has the picture of hitler as part of an exhibition honoring world war vets. and history.

Still he now is hiding behind his choice of no marrying anybody.

But we all know what his position on gay marriage truly is.

Maybe, maybe not on the war excuse.

ALL judges should be impartial and support the law. Personal belief is unacceptable.

a reply to: Annee

I agree, people in positions of power involving the law are the ones that shows their truth colors when the law that they are bind to protect and enforce becomes something they will rather use to wipe their arses.

We now know by what is been going on lately with the rights for everybody to get a marriage license and get marry, that is more prejudice coming from those in power than from the public, per say and that is unacceptable.

The prejudice is ingrained in these peoples mind and nothing will change that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: yuppa

Yeah she was a jerk fo rnot marrying them i agree. but the judge was a jerk wanting to make a example out of someone.

Yeah, judges can be jerks for siding with the law of the land.
They're funny that way. Oh, wait. That's their job.

Get it? Job? Doing the job which one has?
Her job is not deciding who gets a marriage license or not. Her job is issuing a marriage license to everyone who meets the legal requirements. Her interpretation of what God wants has no place in the way she does her job.

Judges can be corrupt as well. I wonder if hes getting any kickbacks from anyone? hmm. ALl judges should have to do a yearly BIAS review. If thye show any bias to something they should not judge those cases. But how can you not see that USING CONTEMPT as a means to get complinace is a BLACKMAIL TACTIC?

As for doing their JObs. Werent alot of german soldiers and commanders jailed and put to death for I was jsut doing my job!

originally posted by: yuppaBut how can you not see that USING CONTEMPT as a means to get complinace is a BLACKMAIL TACTIC?

How can you not see that she was clearly in contempt of a court order, and that the judge did nothing unusual by hauling her to jail? Oh right, because upholding the law is a "blackmail tactic" when its something you don't agree with for religious reasons.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: yuppaBut how can you not see that USING CONTEMPT as a means to get complinace is a BLACKMAIL TACTIC?

How can you not see that she was clearly in contempt of a court order, and that the judge did nothing unusual by hauling her to jail? Oh right, because upholding the law is a "blackmail tactic" when its something you don't agree with for religious reasons.

Sorry I said earlier that Im not against anyone getting married. Im just against strong arm tactics that clearly backfired this time because she was released. Contempt is misused alot.

Basically if a judge gets butthurt they can use it to make you apologize. Basically legally twisting your arm to make you say something you wont mean but to make them feel superior to you. Its BLACKMAIL.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
They re-wrote the law, without the consent of the governed.

You are incorrect. The Supreme Court didn't re-write any law.

Kim Davis could have EASILY accommodated her own religious objections, by allowing her deputies to issue these licenses, but she PROHIBITED them from doing so.

in addition to the governor being fined and/or jailed - the judge that ordered Davis to jail should also be made to resign and be fined and put in jail.

For what offense should the Governor and judge go to jail? Requiring that the Constitution not be violated by officials?

the issue here is Kentucky State law that upholds the 1st Amendment (the part of the Constitution the judge violated).

The other issue is the Supreme Court certainly did re-write the law. Suppose you have someone who wants to drive their lawn tractor on the expressway. It is prohibited for him to do so. So he appeals using the 14th Amendment, and claims that he is being discriminated against. Or, suppose a parent wants to use their parental rights and their right to artistic expression to tattoo "Sieg Heil" on their 7 year old's neck. This is prohibited - so they appeal using the 14th Amendment and claim they are being discriminated against.

It is using an existing law, and striking down a prohibition - it is rewriting a law.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: yuppaBut how can you not see that USING CONTEMPT as a means to get complinace is a BLACKMAIL TACTIC?

How can you not see that she was clearly in contempt of a court order, and that the judge did nothing unusual by hauling her to jail? Oh right, because upholding the law is a "blackmail tactic" when its something you don't agree with for religious reasons.

Because she had requested accommodation for her sincerely held religious beliefs, for 2 months. She asked the Governor, whom ignored her. Her name would have appeared on any marriage license issued, and that is why she prevented any of her staff from issuing any licenses, to anyone. even if the Deputies issued them, it would have her name on them. She did not give her consent to something she felt was in contradiction with her sincerely held religious beliefs. This is actually a fundamental Constitutional right - whether or not you agree.

it is also a Kentucky State Law to accommodate anyone whom may have a sincerely held religious belief that they could act on, or refuse to act on. The Government would have to prove a compelling interest to infringe on that belief, and if there is a compelling interest found, they must use the least restrictive method.

Putting her in jail for her religious beliefs was a tactic used by Lenin.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

Because she had requested accommodation for her sincerely held religious beliefs, for 2 months. She asked the Governor, whom ignored her.

So what?

She could have let anyone else in the office issue the marriage licenses.

This is not about her religious freedom. Its about her forcing everyone to follow hers.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

Because she had requested accommodation for her sincerely held religious beliefs, for 2 months. She asked the Governor, whom ignored her.

So what?

She could have let anyone else in the office issue the marriage licenses.

This is not about her religious freedom. Its about her forcing everyone to follow hers.

Her signature is probably just an electronic pre printed thing anyways.

It's no different to an Atheist or a Satanist using money that has 'in God we trust" on it.

She would not be performing the ceremony and was even offered to simply stand aside and let the rest of the clerks deal with the gay couples.

It's funny how some on here are suddenly trying the 'one rule for everyone' argument yet are vehemently opposed to gay marriage, which is the polar opportunity of that philosophy.

originally posted by: markosity1973

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

Because she had requested accommodation for her sincerely held religious beliefs, for 2 months. She asked the Governor, whom ignored her.

So what?

She could have let anyone else in the office issue the marriage licenses.

This is not about her religious freedom. Its about her forcing everyone to follow hers.

It's no different to an Atheist or a Satanist using money that has 'in God we trust" on it.

I don't see the comparison.

Having God on our money is a separation of church and state issue. It affects government.

a reply to: Annee

My point was that I nobody cares what is on money. I guess your notes are signed by your treasurer like our in Australia are too? I'll bet you most folk wouldn't even know or care who's signature it is.

HAnd that is what I meant - nobody other than this lady is going to know or care who's signature is on these licenses.

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Annee

My point was that I nobody cares what is on money.

That's not really true. I and others who support 100% separation of Church and State care very much that God is on our money.

There is always a lawsuit going on to remove it. The last one was struck down.

The signature on the money is not an issue, unless that person does something to make it an issue.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

Because she had requested accommodation for her sincerely held religious beliefs, for 2 months. She asked the Governor, whom ignored her.

So what?

She could have let anyone else in the office issue the marriage licenses.

This is not about her religious freedom. Its about her forcing everyone to follow hers.

That is exactly what she was asking the Governor for. Her name is on each marriage License, and in order to accommodate her, her name would have to be removed. That is why she did not want any of her deputies issuing any licenses, as they had her name on them.

if they are issuing licenses, with her name on them, she was not accommodated. So why is this a big deal? because it involves a federal law that the judge violated.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Annee

My point was that I nobody cares what is on money.

That's not really true. I and others who support 100% separation of Church and State care very much that God is on our money.

There is always a lawsuit going on to remove it. The last one was struck down.

The signature on the money is not an issue, unless that person does something to make it an issue.

It was struck down because there is no separation clause in the United States Constitution. Only Lenin believed in true separation of church and state - and he imprisoned anyone publicly expressing their religious beliefs. The teaching of religion was a criminal offense in any aspect of the Communist Government - yet, Christianity did not die - it blossomed.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: markosity1973
a reply to: Annee

My point was that I nobody cares what is on money.

That's not really true. I and others who support 100% separation of Church and State care very much that God is on our money.

There is always a lawsuit going on to remove it. The last one was struck down.

The signature on the money is not an issue, unless that person does something to make it an issue.

It was struck down because there is no separation clause in the United States Constitution. Only Lenin believed in true separation of church and state - and he imprisoned anyone publicly expressing their religious beliefs. The teaching of religion was a criminal offense in any aspect of the Communist Government - yet, Christianity did not die - it blossomed.

This is what the judge said when he rejected the case.

Explain what it means.

"..U.S. District Judge Harold Baer, Jr., wrote that "the Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the motto's secular purpose and effect," . . . www.huffingtonpost.com...

And here come the "creeping" laws.

One North Carolina county is turning to officials from neighboring counties after all four of its magistrates announced they would stop performing weddings for all couples — gay or straight.

In North Carolina, magistrates can legally opt out of performing marriage ceremonies after the state legislature passed a "religious exemptions law" shortly before the Supreme Court ruling in favor of marriage equality. www.advocate.com...